Two acquitted in cheating case

A local court has acquitted Baba Pritpal Singh of Gurdwara Gursagar Sahib, near Sukhna lake, and Jatinder Pal Singh in a cheating case registered 16 years ago. A case was registered at Sector 34 police station under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC on the complaint of RAS Bhullar on May 20, 2008.

He said their company ATS Infrastructure, New Delhi, had purchased land at Madhopur village, Dera Bassi, vide a registered sale deed dated September 30, 2005, at the office of Sub Registrar, Dera Bassi. The land was shown to be in the name of Kamaljeet Kaur. The sale deed was executed on the basis of GPA, registered at the office of Sub Registrar, UT, Chandigarh. The land was purchased for Rs 1,20,17,500.

The possession of land was delivered by the sellers to the company and thereafter, the mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the company, on the basis of attorney given by Shiromani Sant Khalsa International Foundation, Gurdwara Gursagar Sahib, near Sukhna lake, through chairman Baba Pritpal Singh.

The company purchased the land in good faith but thereafter it received summons from the office of collector, Dera Bassi subdivision, in an appeal filed by Kamaljeet Kaur for cancellation of mutation and for registration of case on the ground that she had never executed the GPA in favour of Baba Pritpal Singh.

She claimed that she was not in India when the GPA was executed. Kaur alleged that the GPA has been fabricated by fraud, misrepresentation, impersonation and cheating and her land has been sold without any authority of law and without her knowledge.

After investigation the challan was presented in the court. Finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 120-B, 419, 467, 468, 420 of the IPC were framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Harish Bhardwaj, counsel of accused Baba Pritpal Singh argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case. He said complainant Kamaljeet Kaur had willfully executed GPA dated July 22, 2005.

Acquitting the accused, the court said that the guilt against accused was required to be established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, in which the prosecution had failed and there was not even an iota of evidence to prove forgery and cheating against either of the accused persons.